December 20, 2023 - 5:35pm
A Rimmel London makeup advert with the tagline “Get ready to slay this back-to-school season” has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority for “playing on young girls’ insecurities”. The regulator said that the advert implied it was necessary to wear makeup at school to succeed, and was therefore irresponsible.
The advert is itself relatively innocuous, and arguably far less damaging than most sponsorships and product placements on social media. Beauty vloggers who film their “morning routine and everyday makeup” videos for mass audiences already perpetuate the idea that a full face of makeup is required every day.
The decision to ban the advert is also interesting given that virtually all beauty advertising plays on women and young girls’ insecurities in one way or another, by constantly giving us something new to worry about and spend money on.
In the early 2010s, the beauty industry sold big brows — and a whole new era of threading, waxing, microblading and laminating was born. Then there came “Instagram face”, which needed products for contouring, baking, cut-crease eyeshadow and highlighting. After that was Kylie Jenner, the face that launched a thousand lip fillers. Then, earlier this year, focus switched to buccal fat removal, and giving patients a haunted, hollowed-out look. Now, it’s all about natural-looking “no-makeup makeup”, and selling expensive skincare — and this is what the ASA should be worried about.
Up and down the country, children and pre-teens are not asking for Barbies and bikes for Christmas this year; instead, they’re requesting toners, serums, cleansers and moisturisers. The hashtag #skincare saw a 45% increase in searches this year, and “kidpreneur” influencers like Haven Garza (who is 7 years old and has nearly 5 million TikTok followers) are reviewing skincare products to sell to other children their age. Penelope Disick, the 11-year-old daughter of Kourtney Kardashian, posted a video of her skincare and makeup routine that has over 8 million views on TikTok. A skincare range by 19-year-old actress Millie Bobby Brown is particularly popular with teenagers, while skincare companies such as Drunk Elephant are being endorsed and followed by children as young as eight years old.
Why are children playing with luminisers and eye serums rather than rollerblades and watercolours? Why are we teaching them anti-ageing strategies before they have even aged? Part of this comes down to the ever-powerful marketing strategy that we must prevent ageing rather than reverse it: for example, the hashtag #preventativebotox has more than 53 million views on TikTok, and more than a quarter of people who have Botox are under 34. This obsession with “prejuvination” is just another manifestation of consumer culture, and social media has long been more about influencing our shopping habits than it is keeping up with our friends.
Yet there is something deeply disheartening about the idea that it is now completely normal, indeed accepted, to market products that are perfectly superfluous to pre-pubescent teens. We are not only teaching them to fear ageing, but to be uncomfortable in their own skin before they’ve even properly grown into it. Children don’t need to buy products to obtain “glass skin” or “glazed donut skin” or whatever the newest micro-trend is: the majority are already blessed with hydrated, even-toned skin, and yet more teens and pre-teens wear makeup every day than ever.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI’m sure the people banning beauty ads are perfectly fine with children chopping off their bits. The absurdity is breathtaking.
And obesity is fine.
Natural skin will never be more beautiful than during their teens and twenties, nature and evolution have designed it that way. I can understand the odd touch of makeup on special occasions, but otherwise just leave the hell alone and the use of mainly water when cleansing is all that’s necessary, whilst at the same time saving a fortune in time and money.
It’s my guess that those who over-indulge in these makeup fads will have skin that ages the fastest, and no amount of ‘work’ will help in looking attractive.
While I think this latest ghastly trend deserves trashing, it’s a bit much to say ‘natural skin will never be more beautiful than during their teens and twenties, nature and evolution have designed it that way’. My skin in my teens and twenties was, like that of many of my mates, a nightmare of greasiness and spots. Designed by nature as part of a hormonal chaos that, like most of us, I was delighted to leave behind.
I’m happy to ban this ad, and all ads flogging makeup and worse to girls under 18. But when it comes to adult women we cannot treat them like children needing protection. And protection by whom? Men? Their female “betters”? If you are old enough to vote, or choose to terminate a pregnancy, then you are old enough to make your own choices about makeup.
As a man, I deeply regret some of the choices some women make (Botox and plastic surgery, for example). I think it’s foolish. Like many men I’m a bit repulsed by aspects of current female culture. But it is their choice to make. I am not their keeper.
Time to ban TikToxic.
Yet more evidence that we live in an upside-down world. Whether a young woman would benefit from a little make-up is an intensely personal question… and it’s their mothers and fathers, not the government, which should be instructing them and enforcing such rules. Why would society overthrow the loving, temporary authority of parents, for the abstracted, self-interested and limitless authority of the state?
A lot of the parents seem to be missing in action. And if mum is getting Botox, what example does that set for her daughters. We are not supposed to disparage women for any of the choices they make, so there is no countervailing social pressure. What to do?
Whaaaaat??? Back in 1973, every girl I knew in 9th grade wore lip gloss, mascara, and Love’s Baby Soft.
God, I hate Now.
Are you saying it’s a fuss over nothing? And that it’s nothing new?
Well it’s nothing new to the oldsters who accurately recall our preteen years…
And makeup washes off. It’s not like Botox or plastic surgery. And girls do like to copy adults. Perhaps the author is disappointed that nothing has changed. In the olden days there was an idea that make up, heels etc were examples of patriarchal oppression.
The more freedom women gain, the more they seem to freely choose things that second wave feminists saw as evidence of their lack of freedom.
I feel sick.
I don’t know, my parents wouldn’t allow makeup until I was 13 and that was in the late 70’s. At least this is about skin care rather than thick black kohl eyeliner. It’s rather embarrassing to look back at certain photos now…
Despite all the current talk about the gut microbiome, there is little reported on the skin microbiome (not to mention lung microbiome, etc). The skin microbiome – an intricate community of bacteria that play a part in our immune system – is definitely altered by the use of skin ‘care’, bath and beauty chemicals, cleansers, creams, etc. It is well established that some skin diseases are associated with an altered microbial state. How much the disruption of the indigenous skin microflora, through the early use or long-term effects of beauty products, has contributed to skin problems such acne, eczema, dermatitis, rosacea or signs of ageing is unclear. After all, none of the big beauty behemoths are going to invest in studying negative effects are they? Especially as you can make a lot of money on a potion or lotion for said effects. Perhaps best to let children just be children on health grounds as much as anything else. Plain water for washing goes a long way. Just a thought!
If you’re interested in learning more: Byrd, A., Belkaid, Y. & Segre, J. The human skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 16, 143–155 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.157